Ankit vs U.T. Chandigarh

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.109, dated 08.09.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 351(2), 61(2) of the BNS (offences punishable under Sections 112(2) and 317(2) of the BNS were added lateron), at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Chandigarh.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant – Nikhil working with Netflix company as a salesman alleging therein that he was in dire need of money and had told this fact to his acquittance Viku @ Makhana, who had asked him to give details of his bank account and had then offered that the complainant would be receiving a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in his bank account, out of which he would be able to get Rs.10,000/-. He also assured that the money so credited in his bank account would not be from any wrong source and it was to be sent by some of his acquittance. On being so allured, the complainant had agreed to divulge the details of his bank account to accused Viku @ Makhana. Then as per instructions from accused Viku, he had responded to a phone call and had reached at Ram Darbar bus stand on 05.06.2025 where three youths met him, who asked him to accompany them to his banker State Bank of India, Sector-17 branch, wherein they deposited an amount of Rs.10.50 lakhs. The complainant asked them the reason for depositing such amount of money and those youths disclosed that they had received such big amount of money by selling of their ancestral land. They procured the signatures of the complainant on a cheque for a sum of Rs.4.85 lakhs and withdrew the said amount of money. They also withdrew an amount of Rs.30,000/- by using the ATM card of the complainant and kept the said amount with them. On 24.06.2025, the complainant received a message from his banker that an amount of Rs.44,500/- deposited in his account had been frozen. The complainant asked the above named persons about the reason for freezing of his account but they extended threats to kill him. By suspecting that his bank account had been used for fraudulent transactions and for use of cyber fraud money, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

After receipt of the complaint, initially preliminary inquiry was conducted. The Investigating Agency analyzed the allegations levelled in the complaint in conjunction with technical and digital intelligence obtained from Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and Pratibimb Portal, which revealed that by forming an organized cyber crime syndicate, certain persons were engaged in commission of various cyber offences including fake digital arrest scams, investment frauds, phishing attacks, mobile and debit card frauds etc. and the proceeds of crime generated through such frauds were systematically routed into the bank account of the complainant and subsequently withdrawn through cheques and ATM transactions at his instance and under the directions of the accused persons. A formal FIR under the aforementioned sections was registered.

During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the money received by way of fraudulent transactions was transferred into various bank accounts. It was further revealed that an amount of Rs.8.78 lakhs which was credited in the bank account operative in the name of Deepak International Limited, Himachal Pradesh operated by accused Gaurav Thakur was transferred in the bank account operative in the name of the present petitioner. The petitioner was apprehended on 18.01.2026 and was formally arrested. It was also revealed that he functioned as a mule account holder and intentionally permitted cyber fraudesters to utilize his personal bank account for receiving and laundering illicit funds. It also transpired that on 03.06.2025, three separate fraudulent deposits total amounting to Rs.8.78 lakhs were credited into his bank account and were withdrawn on the same day. The petitioner disclosed that his bank account was solicited by the accused Rohan Dubey on commission of Rs.4000/- and he had accepted the offer due to personal financial difficulties. The above named Rohan Dubey was subsequently arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was nowhere involved in the transactions executed between the complainant and the other accused and had no relation with them. The amount of Rs.8.78 lakhs deposited at the instance of co-accused Rohan Dubey had been withdrawn and given to the latter and only commission of Rs.4000/- was received by him and he is beneficiary to the extent of that meagre amount of money only. He has been nominated only on the ground of being a mule account holder. He lacked any mens rea and had no motive to commit the alleged offence. He has been made a scapegoat for the crimes committed by main perpetrator. The main culprit is still at large. He is a poor person working as a security guard and is sole bread earner of his family. He is not a habitual offender. He has suffered sufficient period of incarceration. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned Public prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He facilitated laundering of proceeds of cyber frauds by allowing his bank account to be used for routing and withdrawing fraudulently obtained money. The bank account operated in his name was used to receive proceeds of cyber fraud. There are chances of absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is alleged to have provided his bank account as a mule account for the purpose of transfer of money received by way of fraudulent transactions/committing cyber frauds and further transferring the same to other persons involved in cyber crimes. The allegations against him are specific and supported by documents collected during the course of investigation. The amount of Rs.8.78 lakhs, which was transferred into his bank account has been used for the purpose of routing proceeds of crime. The plea that he was not named in the FIR or was induced by co-accused, does not inspire any confidence at this stage, particularly when his role has clearly emerged during investigation. The offence in question is not an isolated act but part of an organized cyber fraud wherein providing banking channels forms a crucial links in execution of crime. The cyber crimes are steadily increasing and have a deep-rooted impact on society. Such offences are serious economic crimes, affecting not only the victim(s) but the financial system at large and therefore, require a strict approach at the stage of granting bail itself. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the manner in which the subject offences were committed, the role attributed to him and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no compelling ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.